going to use the -- for example, use the president's management counsel. there's currently legislation that is passed the house, and is -- passed. the senate, rather, and has gone to the house -- that would create a president's management counsel and also create a group of career people that would be transition directors group. >> host: so there's continuity. >> guest: what it was basically doing is taking what bush did and putting it -- >> host: template or blueprint. >> guest: right, and putting into law. so for candidates, transition operation is something you want on the side. >> host: separate. >> guest: they need to coordinate fremont. like lay johnson dealt with karl rove and karen hughes. and say, well, i'll meet you and just tell you what i'm doing because you don't want conflict

between those, because the worst is when the political people think, here they're working hard for nothing, eating big macs, and -- the dollar menu, not the big mac -- and the transition people have the list of the positions and going to appoint their friends. that's what you want to avoid. >> host: well, as one who has had the privilege to serve in a white house and to serve the american people, i really applaud you and imgrateful for this very serious, depth and interesting and revealing book, "before the oath: how george bush and barack obama managed a transfer of power." i was struck by your apt optimism and i hope that the current president and our neck -- our next president heeds

your council and advice. >> guest: i think the well. one thing about president that unites them, they care below the institute of the presidency and how they leave it. >> host: that this right nose to end on. congratulations. >> guest: thank you very much. >> host: thank you. >> that was "after words" a program in which authors of the latest nonfiction books are interviewed. watch past programs online at book dis.org -- booktv.org. >> you're watching booktv on c-span 2. we are on location at the catholic university of america in washington, dc. we're meet something of the professors who have also written books. joining now is prefer matthew -- professor matthew green, who has written "the speaker of the house. a study of leadership." professor green, what is the speaker of the house responsible

for? >> guest: well, the speaker of the house has a number of responsibilities. he or she is the top officer of the house of representatives in in fact the only one named in the constitution, and so there's an expectation that speakers are there to represent the house of representatives, with the senate and to the american people. the practical matter, the speaker is responsible for ensuring that the house operates correctly, ensuring that legislation is enacted, helping to develop the agenda, interacting with the president, interacting with the american people, and ensuring that in general the house is working the will of the people. >> host: could anyone be the speaker of the house? do you have to be a member of the house to be speak center. >> guest: technically you do not. a thulite constitution says is the house shall choose its speaker. so in theory, anyone can run for speaker of the house. as a practical matter it's always been a member of the house of representatives, but that is not a limitation that

the constitution imposes on the selection of the speaker. >> host: how partisan is the post? >> guest: that a great question. i would say this. the partisanship of the office of speaker has changed over time. from the very beginning, the office of speaker had those partisan and nonpartisan responsibilities. in other words to some extent the speaker was expected to represent the majority party in the house, but also to some extent the speaker has parliamentary responsibilities, ensuring that the rules are followed, that every member has the same rights and is treated fairly, and to preside over the day-to-day operations of the house and the house floor. over time, the position of the speaker has become more partisan, and i would say reached its -- the height of contemporary partisanship around then 1990s and 2000's with

speaker gingrich and supremer pelosi. speaker boehner has tried to re-introduce the less partisan aspects of the speakership but still a very partisan position and the majority party in the house expects the speaker to carry out the will of the majority party. >> host: when you look back at the history of the speakers, who have been some of to the more effective ones or well-known ones? >> guest: well, first that comes to mind is sam rayburn, who was speaker from 1940 until 1960s, and he was to prominent speaker in part because he lasted so long. he served off and on for 20 years. it's very rare to have a speaker last as long as that. certainly not more than two or three terms. but he also was a rare speaker in that he understood the house in which he served. he understood what it was that motivated members of the house of representatives. he had what you might say is a

feel for the chamber. that made it possible for him to get a lot done as speaker because we knew what was possible. he understand the art of the possible in congressessal politics and some major legislation that was enacted during that time period was enacted during his speakership liberty was transportation legislation, some early civil rights legislation, legislation related to world war ii, so he was in many ways one of the most effective and best known speakers of the house of representatives. we have also had recent speakers who have demonstrated considerable effectiveness. out in gingrich in this early years, the first 100 days, third house into a real machine, just producing major, major legislation during his leadership, relatively swiftly, which was very impressive. nancy pelosi in particular, the enactment of health care legislation, which was would huge feat and a last-minute

outcome in large part because of her leadership. so, we have had speakers -- most speakers, at least since then 1940s, known for at least producing one major work of legislation, but certainly at the top of the list i have to say would be sam rayburn. >> host: what is the speaker's normal interaction with the senate? >> guest: with the senate? i wouldn't say the speaker has normal interaction with the senate. it varies by who the speaker is, varies by which party is in control of the house and which party is in control of the senate, and varies on the personalities of the speaker and the senate leadership. there's an expectation that speaker need to have an open line of communication with the leadership in the senate because you can't get any legislation en, ad without the senate's approval. and so to that respect, there is

some communication or relationship but the degree of closeness between, say, the speaker and the senate or senate leaders, it's going to vary tremendously by who the individual speaker and is who the letters in the senate are. >> host: matthew green, who have been some of least effective speakers? >> guest: least effective speakers. well, good question. i'd say there's certain lay host of speakers in then 19th 19th century that didn't serve very long and aren't known for doing very much, and so you could put those on the list. but if we want to keep our focus on speakers since then 1940s, the focus of the book, looking a speakers sense. the 1940s, i would say the first name that comes to mine is probably either carl alberts, who served in the early 1970s, or john mccormick who served after rayburn until 1970. they had more difficult time

getting legislation enacted to some extent they had a more difficult party to work with. the majority party, the majority democrats had rebels, folks who wanted to go their own way and that makes it hard tone -- to enact legs. they also had permanent issues, mccormick, had been waiting to be speaker for many, many years, and so when he finally got the chance, he was somewhat elderly, and i heard at one opinion he presided over the house with an oxygen tank. so he didn't have the fortitude and the constitution necessary to really put in the effort necessary in order to get big legislation done. so, i would say that mccormick and albert were probably lower on the list of those who were effective contemporary speakers. >> host: how would you grade john boehner? >> guest: well, hesitate to

grade john boehner to the extent he is still speaker, and we see in history that sometimes speakers save their big excess most amazing accomplishments for the end of their tenure. so we still have -- i think the jury is still out. i would say this about speaker boehner. back in the early set 30s we had a speaker named john nance gardner, vice president under fdr. he once said that speakership is the hardest job in washington. and i think that pretty much sums up the experience of john boehner. imagine how much has changed since the 1930s when john nance pa garner was saying, if anything the job has gotten more difficult now. speakers have to deal with huge amounts of campaign funding, independent groups funding sometimes primary challenges against members of your party, you have a 24-hour news cycle, a

plethora of interest groups, putting tremendous pressure on the job of speaker to try to get things done without making too many people angry. i think that boehner certainly has -- those are challenges to his speakership. then couple that with some of the more, shall we say, independent-minded members of his party right now in the house 0 of representatives that make it harder for them count on the party loyalty necessary to enact legislation especially when you can't get any votes from the minority party. i would say that boehner has done the best he would do with a bad hand. >> host: professor green, members -- speakers are also members of congress. how much attention too they pay to their particular district once they become speaker. >> guest: this i one thing i argue in the book. traditionally people assume that once speakers become speaker, what they're thinking about is their party. they want to do what they're

party wants. it's the majority party that decides who the speakerrer is going to be. while i acknowledge that is true to a large degree in the book, what i also point out is that speakers have done things on behalf of issues and concerns that matter to them personally, and so every once in a while we see speakers pressing for legislation that doesn't seem particularly important to the majority party in the house of representatives, or even to the president, but matters to them personally, whether it's in the case of speaker boehner, education, which is important to him personally. and further back in the past, nancy pelosi and human rights. john mccormick and catholic education. sam rayburn and the energy since the oil and gas industry in texas. we do into speaks sometimes saying this matters enough to me that i want to pursue this. and they also do have to think about themselves getting

re-elected. so, in addition to the issues that matter to them, there are sometimes things they do because if they don't do it might put them in danger of lieuing their -- losing their seat. the last speaker to lose re-election was tom foley in 1994. but speakers like other members know that they need to at least be ware of the possibility that they could lose re- election so they will pay attention to their districts and do things that might be particularly important to their own constituents, just like any other member of congress would. >> before tom foley, who was the last speaker who lost an election. >> guest: it was in the 19th 19th century. it had been real over 100 years before foley that the last speaker lost re-election. >> host: what makes a good speaker? in your view? >> guest: what makes a good speaker. i would say it's a combination of a number of things. first i'd say be a good listener. speakers have to be good listeners. they have to hear what members

are saying. they have to know when a member of congress says something. if they're really saying -- meaning what they say or if there's something else going on there, so being able to understand what members want and need. related to that is knowing the districts of members of congress. so that if you have someone in your party saying issue just can't support you on this, because my con state opportunities would oppose it, the speaker needs to say, actually, i also understand your district and i don't think it's quite as the situation you portray. in other words, being able to persuade members involves knowing members and their districts. and persuasion is a third thing that matters. but in addition to these personal traits what makes a good speaker is an funding they are representing the entire chamber, the whole house of representatives. to at the voters and the president and the senate. so that means sometimes saying too members of congress, i know